Kate Chaney (Curtin, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move amendments (1) to (4), as circulated in my name, together:

(1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 5, column 1), omit "to 4", substitute "and 3".

(2) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 8, column 1), omit "Schedules 6 and 7", substitute "Schedule 6".

(3) Schedule 4, page 95 (line 1) to page 129 (line 8), omit the Schedule.

(4) Schedule 7, page 169 (line 1) to page 188 (line 29), omit the Schedule.

It is outrageous that this bill is not going to an inquiry. The government and the coalition won't agree on anything. Why do you think they agree on this? It is the biggest reform to our electoral system in 40 years. It took six months to draft, but apparently it doesn't need any scrutiny. Communities are showing that they want choice, and this bill would reduce our choices.

With more time, better amendments could be proposed with input from the experts and the public. They could address both the intended-but-undemocratic parts of the bill and the inevitable unintended consequences of this bill, of which I'm sure there are many. But, given the timing of this bill and the way it is being unceremoniously rushed through the House and the Senate this fortnight, I'm going to constrain my amendments to a couple of conceptual things that are deeply problematic. These are the most offensive parts of the bill, although there is tough competition for which are the most offensive parts.

My amendments remove schedule 4 and schedule 7. Schedule 4 deals with expenditure caps. Expenditure caps on election expenses are complicated and not fair. It you're an incumbent, you have an office, you have staff and you have a communications budget. If you're in a party, there are also senators in your area that have their own communications budgets. The way this legislation is drafted, any ads that are not for the individual but are for the party are not counted within the divisional cap, so a party incumbent could outspend a challenger many times over. Just listen to that. They could outspend a challenger many times over. This is not a level playing field.

Now, a small tweak to the spending cap for challenges is not going to fix this. This is a fundamental problem with the legislation. Spending caps are not necessary if you deal with transparency and a reasonable donation cap. I think a fair bit of work needs to be done on that too, but that needs to be done in a sensible, considered way in full public view, not rushed through in a hurry like this. This is not banning big money; it is protecting the parties and locking out challengers. That is why my amendment proposes to remove schedule 4 on expenditure caps.

The second change in my amendments is to remove schedule 7. This is administrative assistance funding and election funding. We are in a cost-of-living crisis. Why should taxpayers massively increase payments for political campaigns when so many people are struggling? This is just wrong. An increase in public funding to politicians like this was attempted in 2013, but the public got wind of it and it was pulled. The public realised they were being asked to pay more for political campaigns, and that was not on. This is a huge increase of about $40 million in public funding for politicians. There are two types here. There's public funding on a per-vote basis and administrative assistance funding, and both types lock in the major parties. For per-vote public funding, we're going to see a huge increase under this legislation, from $3.50 to $5. This is calculated based on how many votes you got in the last election, so it's great if you happen to be an incumbent. It's not great if you're a challenger. If you didn't get any votes last time, because you weren't running, you get no funding. This makes just one more challenge that people have to face when they are taking on the two-party duopoly. Parties are able to make a profit in unwinnable seats and shift that money to where they're being challenged. They can harvest that public funding and use it strategically. It gives them a war chest to fight any new challengers. Now, this is fine for me; I'm an incumbent. But it's not fine for anyone new who thinks that we need new ideas and new ways of being represented in our politics. This reduces competition, and it's not on.

The administrative assistance funding is also deeply problematic. This is a huge transfer of cash from taxpayers to political parties, and it doesn't have to be spent; it can be banked. If it is spent, it can be sent on all sorts of things—way too many different things. It's $30,000 per MP and $15,000 per senator but all the admin is done centrally by the party—so, even though every extra MP a party has attracts another $30,000, all that admin is done by one or two people centrally. And there are definitely economies of scale in administration—ask any company in the country. (Time expired)

I seek leave to continue.

See this speech in context